




% 





i 


























LUTHER MARTIN: 


THE “FEDERAL BULL-DOG.” 

BY 

HENRY P. GODDARD. 



II. 

A SKETCH 

OF THE 



i 


/ . *.•? ^ # V 


. / 




'v\ 


\/0 c <r ^ 


T- 




%/■ 



LIFE AND CHARACTER 




OF 


NATHANIEL RAMSAY, 


BY 


W. F. BRAND, D. D. 



JBallimor^ 1887. 


/ " 


/ 


f A 

: C 


/ 









-> uni}- 7U u b l it* a l i on ^ QTo. 24. 


I. 

LUTHER MARTIN: 

# 

THE “ FEDERAL BULL-DOG.” 

BY 

HENRY P. GODDARD. 



LIFE AND CHARACTER 

OF 

NATHANIEL RAMSAY, 

BY 

W. F. BRAND, D.D. 

* 


Jjlnlltmors, 1887. 


» 


Vls G $■ 


PEABODY PUBLICATION FUND. 


Committee on Publication. 

1886 - 87 . 

HENRY STOCKBRIDGE, 

JOHN W. M. LEE, 

BRADLEY T. JOHNSON. 


Pkinted by John Murphy & Co. 
Printers to the Maryland Historical Society. 

Baltimore, 1887. 


/ 




33 / 


I. 

LUTHER MARTIN. 

• • 

ii. 


NATHANIEL RAMSAY. 




























































, i 


























































LUTHER MARTIN 




PREFACE. 

In the preparation of this pamphlet the published authorities 
consulted have been Hildreth’s History of the United States; 
Scliarf’s History of Maryland^ and “ Chronicles of Baltimore;” 
The Reports of the Trials of Samuel Chase, and of Aaron Burr ; 
The Autobiography of Judge Taney ; The Life of Judge Story, 
by W. W. Story ; Kennedy’s Life of Wm. Wirt ; The two Lives 
of Wm. Pinkney, by Wheaton and by Bishop Pinkney ; Parton’s 
Life of Aaron Burr ; Blennerhassett’s Diary ; Henry Adams’ 
Life of John Randolph (American Statesmen Series) ; Jacobs’ 
Life of Capt. Cresap ; The Life of Rev. Jas. Millnor, by Rev. 
J. S. Stone, besides the old newspapers and pamphlets of Mar- 
tin’s day in the rich library of the Maryland Historical Society. 
Most useful of these has been the copy of “ Modern Gratitude,” 
possessed by the Society, of which I know of but one other copy 
extant, that in the possession of Luther Martin McCormick, of 
No. 147 West Preston street, a grand-nephew of Luther Martin. 
This gentleman, who is the only surviving descendant of Mar- 
tin’s family, is also the owner of Pine’s picture of Martin and 
family and of the miniatures by Peale. To him I am greatly 
indebted for material, as I was to his venerated father, Rev. Thos. 
McCormick, who died in 1883, having passed his 90th birthday. 
That gentleman, the late Chas. Tiernan, who died in 1886, and 

Hon. J. H. B. Latrobe, who still presides over the Maryland 

• • 

Vll 


Vlll 


PREFACE. 


Historical Society, are the only persons I have been able to find 
who recall Martin, and each furnished me with reminiscences. 

To Judge John A. Campbell, now living in Baltimore, I am 
indebted for impressions of Martin, gathered by Judge Campbell 
from conversations with Judge Taney and John Quincy Adams. 

Martin’s letters to Mrs. Chas. Hager were published in the 
defunct “ Baltimore Times” in January, 1882, by Col. J. Thos. 
Scharf, who has, or had them then in his possession. 

It is my hope at some future date to expand this pamphlet into 
a biography. 

* 

Henry P. Goddard. 

Baltimore, Md., March 26 , 1887 . 


LUTHER MARTIN: 

THE “FEDERAL BULL-DOG.” 


I N the Pictui’e Gallery of the Maryland His- 
torical Society at Baltimore, there hangs a 
large oil-painting, in which the artist, Robert 
Edge Pine, lias portrayed a group of young people 
attired in the costumes worn by the wealthier class 
in this country in the latter part of the 18th cen- 
tury. The group consists of husband, wife, and 
two little girls ; one, almost an infant, reclines in 
the mother’s arms, while the other, a child of 
apparently six or seven years of age, is playing 
with a small dog. The lady is dressed in silk, 
and is looking across a smooth green lawn from 
the porch on which she sits, her eyes following 
the direction of her husband’s hand, which is 
pointing toward a vessel coming up the harbor 
of Annapolis, where the picture was painted. The 
man has a riding whip in the other hand, his 
2 9 


10 


dress is of velvet, his face handsome and intelli- 
gent. Behind the wife a colored servant watches 
with care the youngest child, and the whole pic- 
ture suggests comfort and domestic happiness. 

Sometime between the years 1820-25 a rising 
young member of the Baltimore bar, who still 
practises his profession in that city of which he 
has lone; been One of the most esteemed and re- 
spected citizens, and who lias for a long series of 
years presided over the society in whose gallery 
hangs the picture just described, 1 was associated 
with the late Roger B. Taney, afterwards the cele- 
brated Chief Justice of the U. S., in trying a case 
in the U. S. District Court in session at Balti- 
more. William Wirt was the opposing counsel, and 
the court room was filled with interested auditors, 
when suddenly there was a little ripple of excite- 
ment and the crowd gave way to right and left 
as a grey-haired old man tottered into the room, 
and passing inside the rail seated himself as if 
accustomed to the place. Apparently ignoring or 
unconscious of the deference shown him by the 
lawyers present, as well as by the spectators, he 
seemed absorbed in munching a piece of ginger- 
bread. The old gentleman had on well-worn knee 
bi’eeches, yarn stockings, silver buckles on his 
shoes and ruffles on his shirt bosom and sleeves. 


1 lion. J. II. B. Latrobe. 


11 


It needed but brief observation to satisfy the sur- 
prised young lawyer that the old man was nearly 
bereft of mental power and had wandered into the 
court room more from a feeble instinct than with 
any real purpose. 

The handsome young husband of Pine’s picture, 
the centre of that happy family group, and the 
trembling old dotard that was seen thus aimlessly 
wandering into a court room were one and the 
same. It is Luther Martin, with his lovely wife 
and fair daughters, Maria and Elinor, that we see 
in the picture. It is Luther Martin, for over a 
half century a recognized leader of the Maryland 
bar — a bar ever famous for its eminent members, 
— the man who had been leading counsel in two of 
the greatest trials of cases of national interest and 
importance in the history of our country, who had 
thus wandered, a discrowned, demented and almost 
friendless Lear into the arena of his old renown. 

Knowledge as to the early life of Luther Martin 
is chiefly obtained from the brief autobiographical 
sketch published by him in one of the later num- 
bers of that remarkable series of pamphlets en- 
titled “ Modern Gratitude,” published by him in 
1801-2. 

Born at New Brunswick, New Jersey, in 1744, 
Martin — who was of English stock — was the third 
of nine children. In 1757 he went to a grammar 
school where he learned the rudiments of Latin : 


12 


tlience to Princeton College, where he graduated in 
1763 at the head of a class of thirty-five. 

The poverty of his parents had made it a hard 
task for them to send him to college, hut he fully 
appreciated what they had done for him in pro- 
viding for his education, “ for which,” he says in 
“ Modern Gratitude,” “ my heart heats toward 
them with a more grateful remembrance than had 
they bestowed on me the gold of Peru or gems of 
Golconda.” As soon as of legal age Luther con- 
veyed to his elder brothers, in return for their 
sacrifices, a small tract of land that came to him 
from his grandfather. 

Two days after graduation the lad of 19 decided 
on law as his calling, and, with a few dollars in his 
pocket and a few friends for company, set out for 
Cecil County, Maryland, with letters to a Rev. Mr. 
Hunt. This gentleman kindly treated him and 
gave him letters by aid of which Martin secured a 
school at Queenstown, Queen Anne’s County, Mary- 
land, where he taught till April, 1770, living with, 
and using the library of, Solomon Wright, father 
of Robert Wright, later a United States Senator 
from Maryland. His means were scanty, and he 
was then, as ever after, in pecuniary stress, for 
he was improvident by nature. He ran in debt, 
and when he stopped school-teaching to devote his 
whole time to law study, he was arrested on five 
different warrants of attachment. Of his pccu- 


13 


niarv difficulties at that time he says in “Modern 
Gratitude”: “I am not even yet, I was not then, 
nor have I ever been an economist of anything but 
time.” 

In 1771 Martin was admitted to the bar, and in 
1772 went to Williamsburg, Virginia, where he 
remained during a term of court, making many 
valuable friends, among them Patrick Henry. He 
soon began practice in Accomac and Northampton, 
Virginia, was admitted as an attorney in the courts 

of Worcester and Somerset Counties, Maryland, 

♦ 

and took up his residence in Somerset. His in- 
come soon reached the large sum, for that day, of 
1,000 pounds per year, and was never less till the 
revolutionary troubles began. 

That in the very inception of his legal practice 
he displayed ability that insured success and fame 
therein, is evinced by the recorded fact that at one 
of his early terms before the Williamsburg Court 
he defended 38 persons of whom 29 were acquitted. 

In 1774 Martin was appointed one of the com- 
missioners for his county to oppose the claims of 
Great Britain: also a member of the convention 
called at Annapolis to the same end. In this, his 
first appearance in the arena of politics, he at once 
took strong patriotic ground. About this time he 
published a reply to the address sent out by the 
Howes from their ships in Chesapeake Bay, also 
an address “ To the inhabitants of the peninsula 


14 


between the Delaware river and the Chesapeake, 
to the southward of the British lines,” which was 
circulated in printed hand-bills. 

It is to these days he alludes in “ Modern Grati- 
tude ” (page 138) : “ Throughout which not only 
myself but many others did not lie down one 
night in our beds without the hazard of waking 
on board a British ship or in the other world.” 

In 1778, by the advice of Judge Samuel Chase, 
Martin was appointed Attorney General of Mary- 
land. In this position he most vigorously and rig- 
orously prosecuted (almost persecuted) the Tories 
of his State, making thereby life-long enemies as 
well as warm friends, for throughout his whole life 
he was never neutral in anything. 1 Always lavish 


1 In the early Maryland Reports can be found a case which shows the 
bitterness with which Martin, as Attorney General, pursued all suspected 
of having been Tory sympathizers during the Revolution. It is the case 
of State of Maryland vs. Samuel Johnston, tried in 1786 (2 H. & McII. 
160). Mr. Johnston applied to be admitted to practice in the courts of 
Maryland. Martin opposed on the ground that at the outbreak of the 
Revolution Johnston had resigned certain petty offices in Pennsylvania 
rather than take the oaths of allegiance, and had removed to Maryland 
to remain “ peaceable and inactive” during the war. 

Johnston acknowledged this charge, but pleaded that his conscience 
did not permit his taking the oatli referred to at the time as he did not 
think himself absolved from allegiance to the king, until independence 
was acknowledged, although he wished well to our liberties; that his sons- 
in-law were colonels in our militia, two sons privates in our armies, one 
of whom was taken prisoner; that now that independence was established 
he was perfectly attached to the government of Maryland. 

Although all the witnesses corroborated Mr. Johnston and represented 
him as a mild, conscientious gentleman, Martin fought the case by every 
legal resort and did not submit until a third and final hearing, before the 
highest court in the State, when Mr. Johnson was decided admissible. 


but never grasping, lie very early in bis official 
career refused a silver service tendered him for his 
bold prosecution of a wealthy citizen charged with 
the murder of an Irishman. His spare hours at 
this time were spent in managing a salt mine at 
Accomac. 

In 1783 Martin married Miss Cresap of Old 
Town, Alleghany Co., Md., a daughter of that cele- 
brated Capt. Michael Cresap who was charged by 
Thomas Jefferson, in his “Notes on Virginia,” 
with the massacre of the family of the Indian chief 
Logan. The alleged speech, put into Logan’s 
mouth by Jefferson, in relation to the wrong done 
the Indian was until recently a favorite piece for 
school-boy declamation. In a life of Capt. Cresap, 
published at Cumberland, Md., in 1826, 1 it is 
stated that Martin published a reply to Jefferson 
defending Capt. Cresap, but that it had a limited 


1 The author of this life was one John J. Jacob. It is quite a readable 
little volume. In it the writer says, apropos of Jefferson, that he foresees 
the difficulty of questioning the truth of any statement made by such a 
man, “ especially by such a pigmy as myself, however encircled with the 
shield of truth, would in all probability, be as unavailing and feeble as the 
efforts of a musquito to demolish an ox,” hence, he says, he received assur- 
ances from Luther Martin, who had intermarried with a daughter of Capt. 
C. that lie would undertake a defence. Confident in his ability and posi- 
tion, “ co-equal with the philosopher of Monticello,” he placed the mate- 
rials in his hands. He adds that Martin published a defence of Capt. C. 
but that it did not have a wide circulation, as “ pamphlets are soon lost 
and party spirit ran so high that any blemish on the moral fame of Jef- 
ferson was easily transferable to his political standing, hence it was bet- 
ter upon the whole some men might think that Cresap, however innocent, 
should yet remain under censure, than that any suspicion as to the perfec- 
tion of so great a character should rest on the public mind.” 


16 


circulation and has disappeared. Although Jef- 
ferson said of this pamphlet that it was of a style 
“ that forbade the respect of an answer,” the ver- 
dict of history is pretty well established that 
Logan was not wronged by Cresap, at any rate 
to the extent claimed in the imaginary speech; 
but the feud thus created between Martin and 
Jefferson never ended ; “ as great a scoundrel as 
Tom Jefferson,” being the severest condemnation 
Martin could bestow on any man. 

In 1787 Martin was sent by the Maryland Leg- 
islature as one of the delegates to the convention 
at Philadelphia, which framed the Federal Consti- 
tution. In the debates of that famous body he 
took an active part. In view of the fact that not 
many 

antagonist, Jefferson, “the Federal Bull-Dog,” it 
is noteworthy that his speeches in convention were 
in vehement opposition to the Constitution, and 
that he left the body forever with one of his col- 
leagues and went home rather than sign the in- 
strument. He kept up his opposition on his 
return to Maryland and laid befoi*e the Legisla- 
ture of that State some of the ablest arguments 
against ratification ever made. 1 

o 

A single quotation from his protest against the 
license allowed the African slave trade in the Con- 

1 It was from Martin’s arguments published at this time that John C. 
Calhoun was wont to draw in his nullification speeches. 


years after he was christened by his old 


17 


stitution may serve to indicate the prophetic wis- 
dom and wise statemanship of the man. “ It 
oimlit to he considered that national crimes can 

o 

only he, and frequently are, punished in this world 
hy national punishments, and that the continu- 
ance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a 
national sanction and encouragement, ought to he 
considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure 
and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all, 
and Who views with equal eye' the poor African 
slave and his American master.” 

The Madison papers confirm Martin’s report of 
his opposition to the continuance of the slave 
trade. That he was conscientious and consistent 
therein appears from the fact that in 1789 we find 
his name associated with that of his friend Juds:e 

O 

Chase as the two “ Honorary Counsellors ” of the 
Maryland Society for promoting the abolition of 
slavery, and the relief of poor negroes and others 
unlawfully held in bondage.” 

It is remarkable that the next public appear- 
ance of Luther Martin in a matter of national 
interest was as a staunch supporter of this very 
Federal Constitution, the adoption of which he 
had so ardently opposed, and fully as remarkable 
that such appearance should be as counsel for a 
Federal official — his warm personal friend — who 
had been no less bitter in his opposition to the 
same instrument. This appearance was as one of 
3 


18 


the counsel for the defence in the impeachment 
trial of Judge Samuel Chase before the United 

o 

States Senate in 1804. 

The occasion was a momentous one and recog- 
nized as such bv all who participated therein, as 
here was to be fought one of the first great battles 

of our national history between the advocates of 

*/ 

diverse views as to the construction of the National 
Constitution, and the question to be settled whether 
the judicial department of our government could 
be controlled and manipulated at the pleasure of 
either of the other departments. That President 
Jefferson instigated this trial of the most vul- 
nerable member of the Supreme Court in order to 
make that body less of an obstacle to his methods 
of government is most probable. 

The Senate was presided over by Vice-Presi- 
dent Aaron Burr, who, though he had recently 
slain the ablest Federalist of them all, and was 
out of favor with his own party for his selfish 
effort to push himself into the Presidential Chair 
designed for Jefferson by the party as a whole in 
the last contest, yet presided with a grace and 
fairness that won universal recognition. “ With 
the dignity and impartiality of an angel, but with 
the rigor of a devil,” said an opposition newspaper. 1 


1 With that love of dramatic effect which characterize^ the man, the Yice- 
l^resident had the Senate Chamber fitted up as a court in which the Sena- 
tors were arranged in a semi-circle about himself as centre, with the accused, 


19 


Among the Senators sitting in judgment on the 
case was the future President, John Quincy Adams, 
who steadily voted in favor of the accused, and 
many other wearers of historic names, such as 
Bayard of Delaware, Breckinridge of Kentucky, 
Dayton of New Jersey, Giles of Virginia, Tracey 
of Connecticut, Pickering of Massachusetts and 
Sumpter of South Carolina. 

The Chief Manager of the impeachment on part 

i* 

of the House was John Randolph of Roanoke, 
then but thirty-one years of age and already the 
leader of the House, yet more feared than loved 
for his sarcastic eloquence. Hildreth (History of 
the United States) well comments on his speeches 
in this case as “tingling but desultory surface 
strokes.” Of his live associates Ciesar Rodney of 
Delaware was the most notable. 

Around Judge Chase, who was fully able to 
plead his own cause yet shrewd enough to draw 
about him the ablest advocates of his day, there 
gathered as counsel his life long friend Martin , 1 

his counsel, the managers of the impeachment and the House, all effectively 
placed, while extra galleries draped in green cloth were provided for spec- 
tators, with handsome boxes for ladies, for the diplomatic corps and mem- 
bers of the government. The Senators’ seats were draped in crimson, those 
for managers and counsel in blue. 

lu Most formidable of American advocates was the rollicking, witty, 
audacious Attorney -General of Maryland ; boon companion of Chase and 
the whole bar; drunken, generous, slovenly, grand; Bull-dog of Federalism, 
as Mr. Jefferson called him; shouting with a school-boy’s fun at the idea 
of tearing Randolph’s indictment to pieces and teaching the Virginia 
Democrats some law, — the notorious reprobate genius Luther Martin.” 
Henry Adams’ Life of John Randolph, page 141. 


20 


Charles Lee, late Attorney General of the United 
States, and Robert Goodloe Harper, who had but 
just ceased to be the Federal leader in the House 
and who has passed into history as one of Mary- 
land’s greatest advocates. Of lesser fame were 
Joseph Hopkinson, author of “ Hail Columbia,” 
and Philip Barton Key, of a family identified 
with our other great national anthem, “ The Star 
Spangled Banner.” 

The charges against Judge Chase were embraced 
in eight articles. Their general drift was that 
he had violated his official oath and been unmind- 
ful of his judicial duties in two cases tried before 
his court and that he had improperly charged a 
grand jury, making his charge a political tirade 
against the party in power. 

Judge Chase was undoubtedly an obstinate and 
bitterly prejudiced old Federalist, who had been 
verv overbearing to members of the bar and most 
injudicious in his remarks concerning President 
Jefferson’s official course, yet that he was not de- 
serving impeachment the result of the trial before 
a body containing a majority politically opposed 
to him and to whom Chase’s “ bacon face,” as an 
opposing journal derisively termed it, was not 
more obnoxious than his political course, clearly 
indicates. The wisdom of the verdict is at this 
day pretty generally admitted. 

The arguments in the trial by Chase’s counsel 


21 


are characterized by Hildreth as “ Martin’s mas- 
sive logic, and Lee’s and Harper’s argumenta- 
tive eloquence directed always to the point.” 1 
Space for extracts from Martin’s argument is 
wanting, but one notes in passing that therein 
Martin lays down an important view of an old 
question in ethics when he says that when coun- 
sel have done all that can be done to insure a 
fair trial for a client, if agreeable to law and to 
clear, undoubted evidence the prisoner is guilty, it 
is the duty of counsel to submit his client’s case 
to the honest decision of the jury without any 
attempt to mislead them, and this whether the 
counsel are appointed by the Court or employed 
by the criminal. He well adds “ the duty of a 
lawyer is, most certainly, in every case to exert 
himself in procuring justice to be done to his 
client, but not to support him in injustice.” 

As is well known the impeachment was not 
sustained, only three of the eight articles receiv- 


1 “If any student of American history, curious to test the relative value 
of reputations, will read Randolph’s opening address, and then pass on to 
the argument of Luther Martin, he will feel the distance between show and 
strength, between intellectual brightness and intellectual power. Nothing 
can be finer in its way than Martin’s famous speech. Its rugged and sus- 
tained force ; its strong humor, audacity, and dexterity ; its even flow and 
simple choice of language, free from rhetoric and affectations ; its close 
and compulsive grip of the law ; its good-natured contempt for the obstacles 
put in its way, — all these signs of elemental vigor were like the forces of 
nature, simple, direct, fresh as winds and ocean, but they were opposite 
qualities to those which Randolph displayed.” Adams’ Life of John Ran- 
dolph, pp. 146-147. 


ing even a majority of the votes of the Senators, 
none the requisite two-thirds. 1 

In 1805 Martin resigned the Attorney-General- 
ship of his State after twenty-seven years con- 
secutive service. Despite his years (he had passed 
sixty) he had still the largest practice of any 
lawyer in the State of which he was the most- 
talked-of citizen, but that he was not mercenary 
is shown by his next appearance in a great public 
trial where his love for the accused and hatred 
of Jefferson led him to take a most active part. 

This was in the famous trial of Aaron Burr at 
Richmond in 1807 ; with the possible exception of 
the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, the 
greatest State trial in our history. 

Burr, who had first met Martin durimr the im- 
peachment trial of Chase, had greatly admired 
his talents and become his warm personal friend, 
and hence at once summoned him to his defence, 
though he neither had then nor ever had the 

o 

money to pay for his legal service. 

Again the surroundings were dramatic and the 

o o 

scene historic. The stately Chief Justice John 

1 Tliat Judge Chase realized how much he owed to Martin, is indicated 
by an anecdote (American Law Review, 1867) to t lie effect that in a case 
before the Federal Court at Baltimore, some years after the Chase trial, 
Martin, overcome by liqucr, was so insolent and overbearing in his deport- 
ment that it became unendurable, whereat the District Judge drew up a 
paper for his commitment for contempt and handed it to Chase, who took 
up a pen to sign it, hesitated a moment, threw down the pen and said: 
“whatever may be my duties as a judge, Samuel Chase can never sign a 
commitment against Luther Martin.” 


23 


■Marshal, then fifty-two years of age, “ with eyes 
the finest ever seen,” sat upon the bench, and as 
he looked upon Burr, who unflinchingly gazed 
back, it was remarked “ that two such pair of 
eyes had never looked into each other before.” 

The counsel for the government were a far abler 
trio than had led the attack upon Chase. Their 
nominal chief was George Hay, son-in-law of 
James Monroe, who acted under advice of daily 
letters from Jefferson, who was even more anxious 
for conviction than in the preceding trial and who 
had greater cause and a far better case. But, 
“ where McGregor sits is always the head of the 
table,” and where William Wirt was one of the 
counsel there could be no other head. Although 
but thirty-five, Wirt was even now master of a 
style of impassioned eloquence that swept all be- 
fore it, as can readily be realized by recalling the 
oft-quoted description in his speech at this trial 
of the ruin of Blennerhasset’s home by Aaron 
Burr. The last of the trio was Lieut. -Gov. 
Alex. McRea, described as “ a sharp-tongued 
lawyer.” 

As in the other trial the real leader of the de- 
fence was the accused, a man whose whole life was 
a romance full of shattered possibilities of good- 
ness and greatness and who, if he had possessed 
anv moral balance, might even then have sat in 
the Presidential Chair filled bv Jefferson instead 


24 


of occupying the culprit’s seat in a trial for treason 
ordered by that chief magistrate. 

The nominal leader of the five able counsel for 
the defence was Edmund Randolph, who had held 
two portfolios in Washington’s cabinet (and left 
the last under a cloud) and had also been Gov- 
ernor of Virginia, able, learned and dignified ; 
second, Martin ; third, John Wickham, leader of 
the Richmond bar; fourth, Benjamin Botts, father 
of the celebrated John Minor Botts, young but 
eminent for his feaidessness ; and fifth, Jack Baker, 
“ a jolly dog,” lame but very witty. 

Martin’s old antagonist in the Chase trial, John 
Randolph, was now foreman of the grand jury, 
having tried in vain to escape from that duty on 
the ground of his prejudice against the prisoner. 

Martin’s argument in the Burr case can be 
found in full in the official published report of 
the trial. All in all it impresses one as a skilful 
bit of special pleading by one who seeks evei’y 
technical loophole for his client’s escape, and who 
has read and studied hard for precedents to that 
end, pressing these home upon the court under 
the plea of asking fair play for Burr, regardless 
of the consequences to Blennerliassett and others 
indicted, notwithstanding that he specially dis- 
claims such purpose. 

A bit of terse common sense may be excerpted 
from Martin’s argument on a question repeatedly 


coming before the coui’ts as to the capability for 
jury service on the part of those who have read 
newspaper accounts of the alleged crime, where 
he says “ every citizen reads the papers. He sees 
therein the charges against the accused. He would 
not have the soul of a man, nay not the soul of a 
mosquito, if he did not take a part in what was 
going forwards and an interest in what concerned 
the welfare of his country. It cannot be doubted 
that juries are as fallible as judges and as liable 
to be influenced by their feelings and passions by 
what they see and hear.” 

In the same argument Martin availed himself 
of the opportunity afforded by an allegation that 
Jefferson was keeping back certain important pa- 
lmers necessary for Burr’s defence, to pour upon 
him the vials of wrath which he was ever ready 
to uncork when the President’s name was men- 
tioned. He closes this passage of invective by say- 
ing that “ whoever withholds necessary informa- 
tion that would save the life of a person charged 
with a capital offence is substantially a murderer 
and so recorded in the register of heaven.” 

In one of his letters to Mr. Hay, Jefferson re- 
torts : 

“ Shall we move to commit Luther Martin as a 
particeps criminis with Burr? Grayball will fix 
upon him misprision of treason at least, and at 
any rate his evidence will put down this unprin- 
4 


2G 


ciplecl and impudent Federal bull-dog, and add 
another proof that the most clamorous defenders 
of Burr are all his accomplices. It will explain 
why Luther Martin flew so has 
‘ his honorable friend,’ abandoning his clients 
and their property during a session of a principal 
court of Maryland, now filled, I am told, with the 
clamors and ruin of his clients.” 

Martin was again on the winning side, for, de- 
spite popular belief in Burr’s guilt, at least in 
intention, which found voice in the jury’s verdict 
of “ not proved to be guilty,” the case of the gov- 
ernment was hopeless after Judge Marshall’s ruling 
that the assembling and enlisting of men on Blen- 
nerhassett’s Island showed no overt act ; that even 
if it did, Burr’s agency did not appear, and that 
the overt act must be established before testimony 
as to Burr’s conduct or declarations could be 
admissible. 

As usual with him, Martin stuck by Burr through 
good and evil report, and after the trial took him 
with Blennerhassett to his own home in Baltimore 
as guests. This created great public indignation, 
in the city, and handbills were posted about that 
“effigies of Chief Justice Marshall, of Burr and 
Lawyer ‘Brandy-Bottle’” would be hanged on 
Gallows Ilill that evening, a plan which was 
carried out, the police only preventing a public 
riot. 


tily to the aid of 


Iii the recollections of John Barney, quoted by 
Barton in his life of Burr, Barney states that he 
was present at a dinner given in Burr’s honor by 
Martin at this time, at which Burr rose from the 
table and went to the window to bow to a passing 

► r * # f- m. 

band, which, he supposed, had come to serenade 
him, but when he discovered that the tune was 
“ the Rogue’s March,” the windows were quickly 
closed. This anecdote was confirmed by the late 
Win. Jessop of Baltimore, who headed the pro- 
cession on the occasion. 

In 1814 Martin was appointed Chief Judge of 
the Court of Oyer and Terminer for Baltimore city 
and county, a position which he filled very satis- 
factorily till the abolition of the Court in 1816. 

t * 

In February, 1818, forty years from the date of 

» 

his first commission, he was reappointed Attorney- 
General of Maryland, but his powers soon waning 
an assistant had to be appointed, and he appeared 
in but few cases. The last important case in which 
I find record of him was the famous case of McCul- 
loch vs. State of Maryland, before the United 
States Supreme Court in 1819, a test case as to 
the right of a State to tax the circulation of a 
United States bank within its limits. Martin 
appeared for the State, with William Pinkney 
opposed to him. It is curious to note that in 
Martin’s argument in this case he goes back to the 
“strict construction” view of the United States 


Constitution of his early days in opposition to 
the general tenor of the stiff federalism of his 
middle life, leading to the conclusion that his 
argument is rather “ official ” than from his con- 
victions. 

In 1820 he had a stroke of paralysis and became 
entirely dependant upon his friends, as he never 
saved any money, which state of affairs led the 
Maryland Legislature in 1822 to pass an act, 
which is unparalleled in American history. This 
act required every lawyer in the State to pay an- 
nually a license fee of five dollars, the entire pro- 
ceeds to he paid over to certain designated trus- 
tees “for the use of Luther Martin.” The hold 
that Martin had upon his professional brethren 
is indicated by the fact that but one 
on record as ever having objected to paying this 
remarkable tax, and he was induced to withdraw 
his objections to the constitutionality of the act 
before the case reached the highest court, while 
the tax was almost universally paid ungrudg- 
ingly. 

As the end drew near, Burr, who was Martin’s 
debtor in every sense, took him in A his own house 
in New York and gave him a permanent home 
therein, where, paralyzed, infirm and poor, he 
Avas enabled to pass his last d»ys in comparative 
comfort, dying July 10, 182o, aged eighty two 
years. 



29 


Martin as a Lawyer. 

Whatever his merits or demerits as man or 
statesman, Luther Martin was indisputably a great 
lawyer. The cases in which he was engaged in 
the formative period of our republic were many of 
them of State or national interest, and as the lead- 
ing lawyer of Maryland at the time he did much 
to mould the general tenor of its laws. His con- 
temporaries, the foremost lawyers of his day, such 
men as Pinkney, Wirt, Harper, Taney and Story, 
have nearly all of them left on record tribute to 
his great abilities. 

A careful perusal of such of Martin’s arguments 
as have been preserved — almost invariably they 
are very lengthy — show a marvellous memory and 
tremendous amount of knowledge of law. Equip- 
ped with endless precedents, he cites them at great 
length and exhausts his side of the case ; yet, while 
here and there is found a piece of tremendous 
invective or amusing sarcasm, as a whole the 
speeches are pretty dull reading. One concludes 
after careful study of these arguments that Martin 
Avon (for he a v as very successful) more by weight 
of precedent and knowledge of Iuav than by per- 
sonal eloquence. 

William Pinkney speaks of Martin’s argument 
ir a case in Avh.jh he Avas pitted against him as 
“remarkably redundant” and “remarkably defi- 


30 


cient ” in that he had resorted to authorities with- 
out number to support what nobody denies and 
“had abandoned the field of fair argument,” but 
in the same speech defends Martin from any 
suspicion of dishonorable action and alludes “to 
his generosity and utter negligence in pecuniary 
matters.” 

In this connection it is interesting to quote from 
Judge Taney, who, in his autobiography, says, “I 
have seen Pinkney writhe as if in pain when lis- 
tening to Martin speaking in his slovenly way 
in broken sentences, using the most indefensible 
vulgarisms and sometimes mispronouncing his 
words,” whereas Pinkney, he adds, often over- 
dressed both his person and his manner, frequently 
addressing the court with hands gloved with amber- 
colored doeskins. 

Chief Justice Taney devotes much space in his 
autobiography to Martin, saying that “he was a 
profound lawyer. He never missed the strong 
points of a case and, although much might have 
been omitted, everybody who listened to him 
would agree that nothing could be added,” that 
the foremost men of the bar were afraid of his 
inexhaustible resources and that his fairness to 
the accused when Attorney-General was always 
notable. 

Judge Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the 
United States Supreme Court, gives a very inter- 


31 


esting sketch of Martin in a letter written at 

o 

Washington in 1808 (quoted in full in the life of 
Judge Story by W. W. Story). He found him 
diffuse, “but amid the chaff is excellent wheat.” 
He animadverts on his slovenly appearance and 
savs, “ you should hear of Luther Martin’s fame 
from those who have known him long and well, 
but you should not see him.” 

Aaron Burr wrote of Martin, “with better breed- 
ing and a redemption from habits of inebriety his 
would be a perfect character. His heart is over- 
flowing with the milk of benevolence. His pota- 
tions may sometimes perhaps coagulate, but they 
will never acidify the fluid with which it is so 
well replenished,” piously adding, “ may it never 
be wasted on the unworthy.” 

In Blennerhassett’s diarv of the Burr trial there 
is a vivid picture of Martin’s staggering into his 
room, introducing himself, swallowing a pint tum- 
bler of brandy, and then talking wonderfully well 
upon all subjects, astonishing his hearers by the 
width and depth of his knowledge but disgusting 
them at the same time by his bad manners. Ad- 
mitting his wonderful power of citing facts and 
making arguments that sweep away all opposition, 
Blennerhasett denies him fancv or yrace and sums 
him up in one word as “ the Thersites of the law.” 
That, especially in later life, Martin was some- 
times guilty of great disrespect to the court is 


32 


evident from recorded cases in which he was 
severely reprimanded for such offences. 

I • 4 

His Private Life. 

The private life of a man who for a half century 
or more held such prominent position in the pub- 
lic eye surely awakens interest, but herein it is 
that he was most a failure. The happy husband 
and father of Pine’s picture, the friend of judges 
and of statesmen, the rival of Wirt and Pinkney, 
the generous host and entertainer of the wealth 
and blood of Baltimore, died a childless widower, 
• poor and imbecile, from his bad habits. 

In his family relations he was especially unfor- 
tunate. His wife, of whom a beautiful miniature 
bv Rembrandt Peale is still extant, died while he 

W 

was in the prime of life, leaving him two daugh- 
ters w r ho inherited her beauty. In the year 1800, 
while these girls were in their teens, Martin, now 
tifty-six years of age, paid his addresses to a 
charming and wealthy widow, Mrs. Mary Hager, 
a lady who at fifteen years of age had refused 
Gen. Horatio Gates, of revolutionary fame, and 
who was at this time the widow of Charles Hager, 
mother of one daughter, and possessed of a lai’ge 
estate in Western Maryland. The mother had 
occasion to employ Martin on some law business 
and was shrewd enough not to refuse him till he 



had won her suits. She subsequently married a 
Col. Lewis. 

A series of Martin’s letters to this lady are 

•/ 

extant. All of them are readable, most of them 
are very ardent love letters and very interesting 
from their mixture of love and politics as well as 
from their revelation of the writer’s character. 

9 

In the very first of the series, dated Annapolis, 
May 12, 1800, he offers himself as follows : 

“ You have a charming little daughter who 
wants a father. I have two who stand in need of 
a mother. By doing me the honor to accept my 
hand, our dear children may have the one and the 
other, and I promise you most sacredly that in 
me you shall ever find a tender, indulgent and 
affectionate husband, and your present little daugh- 
ter shall find in me everything she could wish in a 
father. My fortune, my dear madam, is not in- 
considerable. I have a large landed estate in 
Maryland and Virginia and my practice brings 
me more than $12,000 per year. Our estate united 
will enable us to live in a style of happiness and 
elegance equal to our wishes, and so far am I, my 
dear madam, from wishing my little girls to be 
benefited bv your estate, that if we should not 
increase our family, your fortune, whatever it mav 
be, shall be vour own ; if you survive me, or if 
you should not survive me, your daughter’s.” 

The third letter of the series tells its own story 
o 


34 


and is pretty conclusive evidence that at this 
period of his career Martin had lost the power of 
self-control in the use of stimulants. Reproaching 
the lady for coldness, he says : 

“ I have been told since }'ou left town that on 
last Sunday week, in the evening, I was seen at 
your lodgings. Of this I had no possible recollec- 
tion. I doubt not that I made a very foolish fig- 
ure, but I think it impossible that I should have 
behaved with rudeness or impropriety. Was that 
the reason, my A r cry dear Mrs. H , of the coldness 
and reserve you appeared to meet me with on the 
Monday morning when I called on you before I 
went to Annapolis? If so, I will not blame you, 
but be assured vou shall never see me again in a 
situation that I know not what I do, unless it 
should proceed from the intoxication of love. In 
the heat of summer my health requires that I 
should drink in abundance to supply the amazing 
waste from perspiration, but, having found that I 
was so unexpectedly affected as I was by cool 
water and brandy I have determined to mix my 
water with less dangerous liquors. Xay, I am not 
only confining myself to mead, cider, beer and 
hock, mixed with soda water, but I am accustom- 
ing myself to drink water alone. Thus if we live 
to see each other again you will find me most 
completely reformed and the soberest of the 
sober.” 


35 


In a letter of December 17, 1800, lie is very 
loving ancl pleads for a favorable ending of liis 
suit, announces that he has sent the lady a Christ- 
mas box of currants and raisins with a jug of 
Madeira for mince pie, and (forgetting his prom- 
ised reformation) promises to drink her health in 
a glass of good Madeira at 2.30 p. m. on Christmas 
day and wishes her to observe the same hour by a 
similar libation. 

In the last letter, June 12, 1801, the advocate 
virtually abandons his suit as hopeless and falls 
back into the position of legal adviser and per- 
sonal friend. 

Luther Martin’s besetting sin was indisputably 
love of, and excessive indulgence in, ardent spirits. 
Numberless anecdotes illustrative of this fact are 
still in circulation in Maryland, many purely tra- 
ditional but others well founded. At a meeting of 
the Maryland Historical Society many years since, 
Judge Giles (United States District Judge) cited 
John Quincy Adams as having informed him that 
he (Adams) was once pi’esent in the United States 
Supreme Court when Martin was so drunk that 
the Court adjourned rather than let him attempt 
to conduct his case. 1 He was often compared to 
Porson, the great Oxford professor, who absorbed 
liquors and Greek with equal love and felicity. 


1 Judge Campbell tells me that this was in the ease of Fletcher vs. Feck. 
Crunch’s U. S. Supreme Court Reports, Vol. VI. 


36 


This comparison is apt in connection with a story 
told in Tyler’s life of Judge Taney (page 122 seq.) : 
In a suit of great magnitude as to the interests 


involved, in which Mr. Taney was associated with 
Martin, which was to be tried at Hagerstown, the 
two started from Frederick, 26 miles distant, the 
evening before the appointed day of trial. At 
every relay (5 miles) Martin drank whiskey when 
he could get it, ale, or, if he could get neither, but- 
termilk. Arriving at Hagerstown they took sup- 
per, when Taney told Martin that after a cigar and 
a rest he would come to his room and go over the 
case with him. At 11 p. m, he did so, only to find 
Martin with hat, one boot, and all his clothes on, 
lying across the bed very much under the influ- 
ence of liquor. Finding it impossible to ai’ouse 
him, Taney returned to his own room distracted 
but not daunted and studied the case till day- 
break. At the opening of the Court Taney was in 
his seat, sure that Martin would not appear, as his 
room door was locked when Taney left the hotel, 

t/ ' 

but just as the case was called in walked Martin 
and “ in none of his forensic efforts,” said Taney, 
“ did he excel his skill in the management of this 
case.” 


The late Reverdy Johnson was wont to tell a 
similar story of his experience when, as a young 

lawyer associated with Martin, he drove with him 

» « • 

from Baltimore to Annapolis to try a case. Stop- 


ping over night at the Half-way House, Martin 
got very drunk as usual. Mr. Johnson retired 
and had been asleep some hours, when he was 
awakened by Martin, who entered the room, lit a 
candle, threw himself on his bed, took a volume 
from his pocket and began to read. Much sur- 
prised, Mr. Johnson inquired as to the book which 
so interested him as to keep him from undressing 
and retiring at that late hour. “Young man,” 
replied Martin, “ I have of late always made it 
a rule to read a few pages from the book of 
Common Prayer before going to sleep.” 

That Martin knew the difference between 
“Philip drunk and Philip sober” was evidenced 
in the pretty well authenticated story of the defi- 
nition of drunkenness that he gave to a certain 
Episcopal clergyman of Baltimore, who having 
been complained of by some of his parishioners 
for intemperate habits, sought Martin as his legal 
adviser. “Are you guilty?” said Martin. “That 
depends, sir,” was the reply, “ upon what you 
call drunkenness.” “A man is drunk,” replied 
Martin, “when after drinking liquor he says or 
does that which he would not otherwise have said 
or done” — a definition, by the way, which has 
been much discussed pro and con in social as well 
as legal circles in Maryland since. 

As to Martin’s religious convictions there is on 
record a single important entry, that is in the 


38 


memoirs of Rev. Dr. Jas. Millmore (for many 
years rector of St. George Church, New York) by 
Rev. Dr. J. S. Stone (Am. Tract Soc’y, 1848), 
wherein, says the biographer, “ April 5, 1813, he 
records an account” (in his diary) “as singular 
as it was pleasing of the conversion of L. 
M., an eminent lawyer in Baltimore, advanced 
in years, who had been equally celebrated for his 
powerful eloquence at the bar, and for his notor- 
ious sacrifices at the shrine of Bacchus.” After 
noticing this man’s appearance at a public reli- 
gious meeting, where he engaged in exhortation 
and prayer, in a manner “ which for fervor and 
sublimity astonished all who heard him,” the 
diarist exclaims, “ Thanks be to God, His power 
is infinite ! ” 

This extract must apply to Martin, yet he was 
certainly an attendant at St. Paul’s in Baltimore 
many years befoi’e. The parish records of this, 
the oldest episcopal parish, show him to have held 
a pew from before 1800 to 1824 and that he was 
characteristically ever in arrears for pew rent for 
non-payment of which his pew finally passed into 
other hands. 

Next to intemperance, gross carelessness in 
money matters seems to have been his pervading 
fault. William Pinkney has already been quoted 
on this point and there is abundant other evi- 
dence. An advertisement clipped from a Balti- 


more paper somewhere between 1813 and 1820 
shows Martin advertising for a loan of $1,200 for 
one year. He offers as security land within from 
3 to 12 miles of the city (evidently various pieces 
of property), “valued at $40,000,” offers to pay 
interest every 60 days and closes by saying “ who- 
ever shall advance this money will be secure from 
an}^ loss, will enjoy the same profit upon it as if 
invested in bank stock, and will confer an obli- 
gation upon a person in the catalogue of whose 
vices whatever they may be, ingratitude has never 
been named.” 

It is curious to know on Martin’s own authority 
as narrated by him to the father of a gentleman 
still living, that at about this time (whether in 
response to this advertisement is not stated) the 
wealthy merchant, Robert Oliver, of Baltimore, 
sent his cashier to Martin with his blank check, 
requesting him to till it out for an amount to 
“cover his present necessities.” Said Martin as 
he told the story, “ I took the noble fellow at his 
word and filled out the check for $5,000,” for 
which, tradition says, he subsequently executed a 
mortgage of some real estate, but it is not proba- 
ble that Mr. Oliver expected to be or ever was 
fully repaid. ' 

In their marriages neither of Martin’s daughters 
chose wisely, bringing unhappiness alike upon 
their doting father and upon their own heads. 


40 


These girls, Maria and Elinor, are said to have 
both been beautiful and accomplished. An exist- 
ing miniature of the eldest, Maria, by Rembrandt 
Peale, 1 which was pronounced by the late Madame 
Patterson Bonaparte “ a living likeness,” certainly 
bears out the claim so far as she was concerned. 

The youngest daughter, Elinor, when but six- 
teen years old married, February 24, 1801, at 
Brooklyn, N. Y., Richard Raynal Keene. This 
marriage was in direct opposition to her father’s 
wishes, was unattended by and never forgiven by 
him. It lead to the publication by him in 1801-2 
of a remarkable series of pamphlets entitled 
Modern Gratitude.” : 

This strange work consists of five pamphlets 
published at short intervals, of which but very few 
complete collections are extant. The most valu- 
able, in that it contains the single pamphlet pub- 
lished in rejoinder by Keene bound up with it, is 
owned by the Maryland Historical Society, who 
secured it at the “Brinlev sale ” a few years ago. 

In these publications Martin excoriates his son- 
in-law, R. R. Keene, with all the virulence of 
which his extensive vocabulary and wide reading 

«/ CZy 

of criminal cases gives him command. More bit- 
ter language he could have hardly bestowed upon 


1 This with similar miniatures of Martin and liis wife, all beautifully 
executed, are now in possession of his great-nephew Luther Martin McCor- 
mick, of Baltimore. 


41 


a Cataline or Nero. Yet the work is very tedious 
reading. The sum and substance of the matter, 
as gleaned from the pamphlets and rejoinder 
seems to be that after Martin had taken Keene, 
an impecunious young lawyer, into his home as 
a matter of kindness and charity, the latter stole 
the affections of his young daughter when she was 
but a child of fourteen, and after a sinuous course 
of concealment and deception of her father induced 
her to marry him, despite that father’s requests, 
threats, protestations and commands. All in all 
the book is a curious study, leading one to feel 
that Martin undoubtedly had much provocation, 
that Keene’s conduct was unmanly, but that the 
publication could be of no benefit to any of th.e 
parties in interest, yet it has served one good pur- 
pose in that in defending himself from Keene’s 
charges as to his own early pecuniary difficulties 
and his habits, Martin gives the interesting bits 
of autobiography from which we get all our knowl- 
edge of his early life. 

The inauspicious marriage resulted unhappily, 
the young wife is said to have been ill-treated. 
She survived but four years, dying in 1807. The 
issue of the marriage was one son, Luther Martin 
Keene, born in New Orleans, died in New York 
City. Despite his dislike of the father, Martin 
loved, cared for and educated the son, whose 
father soon dropped out of sight. When the old 
0 


42 


lawyer died he left his valuable law library to 
the lad, who quickly sold it as he did a lot that 
had been willed to his mother by Mr. Burns — 
father of the celebrated belle, Mrs. Van Ness, 
who left a lot in Washington to each of Mar- 
tin’s daughters out of regard for their father. 
The young man squandered the proceeds, went 
from Baltimore to New Orleans, thence to sea 
and came home to New York a wretched invalid, 
dying at a hospital in early manhood, ending the 
direct line of Martin’s descendants. 

Maria Martin, the elder daughter, married 
a naval officer, Lawrence Keene, not a relative 
of Richard Raynal Keene. They lived a while 
with her father, but her married life was also 
unhappy and she separated from her husband, 
who left the city. Not long after she was sum- 
moned to his dying-bed in New York, but his 
life had expired when she arrived. Heart-broken, 
she returned home, but soon became insane from 
her troubles and went to an asylum, where she 
shortly died. 

If Capt. Cresap ever did wrong the family of 
the Indian Logan, surely his sin was visited 
upon his children, even to the third and fourth 
generation. 


LIFE AND CHARACTER 


OF 


NATHANIEL RAMSAY. 






* 





























































♦ 






































































































A SKETCH 

OF THE 

LIFE AND CHARACTER 

OF 

NATHANIEL RAMSAY, 

Lieut.-Col. Commandant of the Third Regiment of the Maryland Line. 


~Vr ATHANIEL RAMSAY was of Scotch-Irish 
1 parentage. His father, James Ramsay, 
when young, emigrated from the North of 
Ireland to the Colonies and, as a farmer, settled in 
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Here were born 
to him, among other children, three sons, to each 
of whom he gave the best collegiate education to 


he had then in America, and each of whom did 
honor to a judicious father’s training. William, 
the eldest of these sons, a much-esteemed Presby- 
terian minister, died in 1771 in Connecticut, where 
all his ministerial life had been spent. David, the 
youngest, and probably the most intellectual, is 



46 


well known among the eminent men of the early 
history of the United States as patriot, historian, 
and physician. 

Nathaniel, the second son, was horn 1st May, 
1741. After Graduation at Princeton he studied 
law, and in 1771 became a member of the bar in 
Cecil County, Maryland. A portrait by one of the 
Peales, hanging above me as I write, represents 
him upholding the goodly volume of Bacon’s Laws 
of Maryland. Before he could have had time to 
attain a high position as a lawyer, he gave himself 
to the struggle that ended in the independence of 
his State and of her associates. He was a delegate 
from his county to the Maryland Convention of 
1775, and was actively engaged in furthering the 
ends of that convention until January, 1776, when 
he was made a captain in the first battalion raised 
in Maryland. 

This battalion, under the command of Colonel 
Smallwood, marched to Philadelphia and thence to 
New York in time to take part in the disaster of 
Long Island, which, but for the judgment and the 
surprising bodily endurance of Washington, might 
have been the termination of the hopes of the 
Americans, and which, on the day of the battle, 
was relieved only by the daring and steadiness of 
a portion of the Marylanders, who, in repeated 
charges on Lord Cornwallis, were used by Lord 
Sterling to cover the retreat of his men. 


47 


Ramsay remained connected with the army until 
the close of the war, although in inactivity during’ 
a long period through no will of his own. He 
found opportunity to gain a reputation for coolness 
and courage ; but he held a subordinate position, 
and he might have had no claim to remembrance 
other than that of numbers of the brave and 
patriotic men of his day but for the fact that, in 
his last battle as in the first, he was among those 
who were called on to face special danger for the 
safety of others. Colonel Ramsay, as a soldier, Avas 
especially prominent on only one occasion ; but his 
conduct then and the great interests that then 
rested on him and his command were such as to 
deserve enduring gratitude, especially from Mary- 
landers, whose reputation he advanced. 

The dreary winter passed by Washington at 
Valley Forge had ended. The Americans, who 
did not often attain distinguished success in arms, 
had shown how they could endure privation and 
suffering. They seem to owe the gaining of 
their freedom to having acted on the precept of 
the early Church Father, Stand as an anvil that is 
beaten. W hen the summer came the British found 
themselves obliged to abandon Philadelphia, and 
on the 18th June Sir Henry Clinton crossed the 
Delaware without opposition. This evacuation had 
been foreseen, and when a council was held to de- 
cide on the course to be pursued a large majority 


48 


of the general officers were prompt to declare that 
an action should be avoided : General Lee even 
asserted that it would be “criminal ” to hazard an • 
engagement. The destination of Clinton was un- 
certain. Washington followed him through New 
Jersey, purposing to be governed by events and 
influenced by a judgment different from that of 
his council a second time convened, and which 
was still of the opinion that a collision should 
be avoided. 

As the British drew nigh to the heights about 
Middletown, without further consultation he de- 
cided on his own responsibility to attack them 
when they should leave a strong position held by 
them near Monmouth Court House. With this 
view he disposed his troops and gave his orders on 
the night before, the 28th June, 1778. To Gen- 
eral Lee was assigned the duty of attacking the 
rear of the enemy when on their march. Recon- 
noitering that he might properly do this, Lee was 
met by a larger force than he had looked for, 
Clinton having marched back with his whole rear 
division. After a slight hesitation he directed the 
whole detachment under his command to regain 
the heights they had passed. “About noon Wash- 
ington, who was leading the rear division of the 
army, to his utter astonishment and mortification, 
met the advanced corps retiring before the enemy 
without having made a single effort to maintain 


their grounds. Those whom he first fell in with 
could give no other information than that by the 
order of General Lee they had fled without fight- 
ing. General Washington rode to the rear of the 
division which he found closely pressed. There he 
met Lee to whom he spoke in terms of some 
warmth. . . . He also gave immediate orders to 
the regiments commanded by Colonel Stewart and 
Lieutenant-Colonel Ramsay to form on a piece of 
ground for the purpose of checking the enemy who 
were advancing rapidly on them.” 

The facts here stated are given on the authority 
of Judge Marshall: the last paragraph is in his 
words. It is not for me to describe the battle, but 
only to present more fully what Marshall dis- 
misses in a line, — the incident that concerns the 
subject of my sketch. Why, being Lieutenant- 
Colonel, Ramsay was in command of a regiment 
I cannot say ; nor do I know when he was prac- 
tically promoted. His formal commission is pre- 
served. It is signed by John Jay, President of 
the Congress of the United States, and bears date 
1st June, 1779, nearly a year after the battle of 
Monmouth : it constitutes and appoints him “ to 
be a Lieutenant Colonel Commandant in the Army 
of the United States, to take rank as such from 
the first day of January, A. D. 1777.” 

Ramsay’s share in the battle of Monmouth is 
related by an eye witness in these words : 


50 


“ I was at General Washington’s .side when lie 

o 

ffave his orders to Colonels Stewart and Ramsay. 

O t J 

General Lee’s command were retiring before the 
British troops which were pressing close upon 
them. General Washington arrived at this junc- 
ture, contemplated the scene for a few moments, 
then called to him Colonel Stewart and Colonel 
Ramsay, when taking the latter by the hand, 
‘Gentlemen,’ said he to them, ‘I shall depend on 
your immediate exertions to check with your two 
regiments the progress of the enemy till I can 
form the main army.’ ‘We shall check them!’ 
said Colonel Ramsay. These officers performed 
what they promised. Colonel Stewart was early 
wounded and carried off the field. Colonel Ram- 
say maintained the ground he had taken till left 
without troops. In this situation he engaged in 
single combat with some British dragoons, nor 

O O / 

yielded till cut down by numbers and left for dead 
on the field. . . . This important service . . . 
arrested the progress of the British army and 
gave time to the Commander-in-Chief to bring up 
and assign proper positions to the main army.” 

This relation is taken from a marginal note in 
a copy of Marshall’s Life of Washington, now 
belonging to Mrs. Barnard, a granddaughter of 
Colonel Ramsay. It was there written by James 
McHenry, afterwards Secretary of War, at the 
time of which he speaks on General Washington’s; 


51 


staff, and, at another period, an aide to La Fayette 
and, being an able officer trusted by the Comman- 
der-in-Chief, more than a military aide to the 
youthful General. 

Family tradition adds something to the state- 
ment made by Mr. McHenry. It is said that 
Washington took the Maryland Colonel’s hand in 
both of his and said with great solemnity : “ Sir, 
in God’s name hold this ground — minutes. The 
safety of the army depends on your doing so.” 
The time specified was more than doubled before 
Ramsay’s guns were withdrawn. They were saved. 

Additional facts are given in a draft of a letter, 
in Mr. McHenry’s hand, found a few years ago, 
among family papers, and now in my possession. 
It is entitled “ Extract of a letter from a gentle- 
man in the army to his friend in this city,” and 
was written for publication in a Philadelphia 
newspaper with a view to correct some wrong 
statements respecting the battle of Monmouth. 
There is on the manuscript nothing to indicate 
whether it was published at the time. A copy of 
it having been given to Mr. Thomas H. Mont- 
gomery, it was by him given to the public through 
the Magazine of American History of June, 1879. 
In his comments, Mr. Montgomery conjectures 
that Mr. Dunlap, the editor to whom it- was 
offered, could not be induced to give it a place 
in his paper. In a paragraph commending a 


52 


number of officers who had distinguished them- 
selves, Mr. McHenry says : 

“ Indeed every gentleman who was engaged 
seem to act to the full extent of his force and 
situation, and to vie with each other for pre- 
eminence in honor. Some even carried this prin- 
ciple in the ardor of military pursuit beyond 
its purpose. This was the case with Lieutenant- 
Colonel Ramsay. While his men were on the 
retreat he was attacked by one of the enemy’s 
dragoons who charged him very briskly. The 
Colonel was on foot. It was for some time be- 
tween them a trial of skill and courage. After 
the horseman tired his pistol, the Colonel closed 
in and wounded and dismounted, him. Several 
dragoons now came up to support their com- 
rade ; the Colonel engaged them cominus ense, 
giving and receiving very serious wounds, till at 
length attacked in his rear and overpowered by 
numbers he was made prisoner. General Clin- 
ton paid a proper attention to such uncommon 
prowess and generously liberated the Colonel the 
following day on his parole.” 

In the marginal note that has been quoted Mr. 
McHenry states that Colonel Ramsay was left for 
dead on the field. This was the fact. During the 
early part of the night he revived, but had no 
opportunity to escape ; he was within the lines of 
the enemy who held the ground on which the 


53 


engagement had taken place until about midnight. 
While the Colonel was fighting hand to hand, a 
pistol was fired at his head within a short dis- 
tance : at the moment of its discharge it was 
turned aside by the sword of an English officer. 
Life was thus saved, but- one-half of the Colonel’s 
face was burned, and ever after showed the 
blackened evidence of his having borne the brunt 
of a dangerous contest. 

From the date of his capture at Monmouth 
Colonel Ramsay saw no active service. A long- 
period was passed on parole or in imprisonment. 
When tardy exchange brought release his com- 
mand had been filled. That happened to him 
of which many during the war had cause to 
complain. The giving commissions was in the 
hands of Congress whose members were not 
always mindful of, or aware of desert. The Com- 
mander-in-Chief, not unfrequently felt the wrong- 
done to men on whom he would have bestowed 
marks of honor. He “ gratefully remembered,” — 
so Mr. McHenry wrote on the margin referred 

t/ o 

to — “ the service rendered at Monmouth,” and 
“on his accession to the Presidency of the United 
States he appointed Colonel Ramsay to the civil 
office of Marshal, and afterwards to a place of 
more .profit in the customs.” 

Before the act of self-devotion ‘ ever gratefully 
remembered,' the two men had been on terms of 


54 


friendly intercourse. Perhaps, therefore, when at 
Monmouth Washington called before him the com- 

O 

manders of the two regiments on whose exertions 
he depended, he addressed himself to Ramsay 
rather than to Stewart, who was of a higher grade. 
This personal friendship continued through life. 
This statement was doubted by a friend. Through 
persistent effort I have learned that the Colonel 
Ramsay who was pall-bearer was a Virginian. 
The records of the Masonic Lodge in Baltimore 
show this to be the fact. 1 

It is probable, although I have no positive 
evidence of the supposition, that after the close of 
the war Colonel Ramsay resumed the practice of 
his profession as lawyer. 

Twice under the first Federation of the United 
States he represented Maryland in Congress — in 
1786 and in 1787. 

In the first year of the present Government he 
was Marshal in and for the District of Maryland. 
His appointment is signed by George Washington, 
President. A second appointment to the same 
office bears date 28th January, 1794, and is signed 
by Edmund Randolph as well as by the President. 
In December, 1794, he was made Naval Officer for 
the District of Baltimore, having received a tem- 
porary appointment in August, when the Senate 
was not in session. In marked contrast with a 
later custom of the Republic, Colonel Ramsay held 


r ^ 

f)0 


this office during the remainder of his life — that is, 
under Washington and Adams, whose political 
opinions he shared, being a Federalist, and also 
under Jefferson and Madison and Monroe. His 
first appointment may be attributed to his General’s 
gratitude ; his long continuance in office was due to 
ability and faithfulness in discharge of duty. 

Despite a somewhat lavish expenditure and a too 
trustful mode of dealing with men, Colonel Ramsay 
was, in a business sense, a prosperous man. At 
Carpenter’s Point, in Cecil County, where the North 
East River joins the Chesapeake Bay, he owned a 
valuable estate, at that time especially valuable as 
a fishing shore. Here, all his life, he was fond of 
spending such time as public duty granted. 

H is home, for a time, was in Annapolis. The 
United States Court for Maryland, when first estab- 
lished, was held in Annapolis. In Baltimore, 
during many years, he occupied Fayetteville — a 
handsome mansion then on the outskirts of the 
city belonging to the friend to whom we are 
indebted for testimony respecting the facts that 
secure to Ramsay a place in the history of his coun- 
try — testimony modestly withheld by his brother, 
the historian. Mr. McHenry had rented his house 
when absent at the seat of government as Secretary 
of War. On his return to Baltimore, not to disturb 
his tenant and to indulge an affectionate intimaev, 
he built himself another dwelling near by. The 


56 


strong friendship thus shown was made closer by 
the marriage of a son of the one to a daughter of 
the other. 

In person Colonel Ramsay was very tall — two 
or three inches above six feet. In early life his 
frame, although vigorous, was somewhat slight. 
He is rightly so represented in the spirited bronze 
casting by Mr. Kelly on the monument lately 
erected at Monmouth. As age advanced his fig- 
ure filled out, so that his commanding appearance 
would have insured observance among his fellow- 
townsmen had he not been well known to all, and 
remarkable also as among the last of the cocked 
hats in Baltimore. 

Courage and gentleness are often associated. 
Colonel Ramsay was characterized by the one 
quality and by the other. He was modest in 
manners, even to an appearance of diffidence ; yet, 
this shyness overcome, he was found to be full of 
humor and good fellowship ; i. e., “ within the 
limit of becoming mirth,” for he was an avowed 
Christian, walking in the fear of God. His daugh- 
ters were fond of telling of a habit that marks sen- 
timent as well as devoutness. After the dismissal 
of his family, before retiring himself, he was used 
to go out and under the open heaven hold com- 
munion with his Maker. He was claimed as a 
playmate by children. The poor knew him to be 
their friend, and therefore not unfrequently im- 


57 


posed on him. His daughter has related how on 
one occasion her father meekly submitted to a 
virago of the neighborhood, who, with the rough- 
ness of one claiming a disputed right, demanded 
food for her pigeons, because he had replaced a 
broken window-pane in his granary and they could 
no longer get their accustomed supply of corn and 
oats. Another fact, also told me by his daugh- 
ter, shows that his kindness of heart betrayed 
him into doubtful modes of relieving suffering. 
As winter approached he always laid in large 
stores of wood brought from his Cecil estate — 
stores large enough for his family and for some of 
his neighbors who could not buy and to beg were 
ashamed. When rebuked for allowing himself to 
be openly robbed, his only answer Avas, “Poor fel- 
lows, they must be cold or they would not take my 
wood.” 

The rigidly righteous may censure his dealings 
with the poor ; but he will not be condemned for 
having shown mercy. 

He was long remembered with affection because 
of his tenderness and generosity, as well as with 
admiration for other characteristics. 

Soon after his admission to the bar Colonel 
Ramsay married Miss Peale, a sister of Charles 
Wilson Peale, the artist and naturalist. From 
this marriage there was no issue. In 1792 he 
8 ' ' 


58 


took a second wife, Charlotte Hall, daughter of 
Aquila Hall and Sophia White, descendants of 
early settlers in the province. Of five children 
born of this union three survived their father : 
William White Ramsay, who left one son and 
three daughters ; Sophia Hall, married to Daniel 
McHenry, whose only child, Ramsay, died unmar- 
ried ; and Charlotte Jane, who was married to 
Henry Hall of Shandy Hall, captain of cavalry 
during the war of 1812, and whose five children 
are now living. 

Colonel Ramsay died October 23, 1817, and 
was buried in the Presbyterian burying ground, 
corner of Fayette and Green streets, Baltimore, 
wherein was built about thirty-five years ago the 
Westminster Church. 1 


1 A few days after, the following obituary notice appeared in the Baltimore 
Patriot. 

Died, On Friday morning at 2 o’clock, Col. Nathaniel Ramsay of 
Baltimore, who in the revolutionary war distinguished himself as a brave, 
meritorious and humane officer. He was loved and esteemed by all the 
army, particularly by that great, good, and discerning man, Gen. Wash- 
ington. 

At the Battle of Monmouth, when our army was pressed by the enemy 
advancing rapidly, Gen. Washington asked for an officer; Col. Ramsay 
presented himself ; the General took him by the hand and said, “ If you 
can stop the British ten minutes (till I form) you will save my army.” 
Col. Ramsay answered, “ I will stop them or fall.” He advanced with his 
party, engaged and kept them in check for half an hour ; nor did he 
retreat until the enemy and his troops were mingled; and at last, in the 
rear of his troops, fighting his way sword in hand , he fell, pierced with 
many wounds, in sight of both armies. Add to this he was one of the best 
husbands, fathers and friends in the world. He will forever be lamented by 
his neighbors , and all who knew him. 


59 


In Independence Hall, Philadelphia, may be 
found a portrait of Colonel Ramsay and also one 
of Dr. David Ramsay, by whom painted the cata- 
logue does not state : the likeness seems to have 
been secured as was that of the Scottish kings 
before Macbeth. The daughters of Mrs. Hall, 
besides a very attractive portrait in oil, from life, 
of Dr. Ramsay, have three portraits of their 
grandfather, taken at different periods of his life : 
one full-size in oil, and two miniatures on ivorv. 

Brief mention of “ the brave Colonel Ramsay ” 
has been made in not a few publications, and lately, 
through the erection of the monument to com- 
memorate the Battle of Monmouth, attention has 
been drawn to the gallant conduct of his command 
in checking what threatened to be a rout. A notice 
of his life was written by myself for Johnson’s 
Cyclopedia, where it appears over the name of 
General J. G. Barnard, and to Mr. Kelly, who has 
by his art enhanced the value of the Monmouth 
Monument, for some publication in connection with 
that memorial, I gave a year ago the substance of 
this sketch ; but I have no reason to suppose that 
my paper has been or will be used. 

In a pamphlet without date, entitled “ Sketch of 
Colonel Nathaniel Ramsay, of Cecil County, Md.,” 
Isaac R. Pennypacker, Esq., has given a number of 
interesting facts, gathered from various sources 


60 


with a diligence presumably quickened by the fact 
that Mrs. Pennypacker is a granddaughter of Mr. 
William White Ramsay. I have not ventured to 
add the fruit of his research to what is familiar 
through family relations. 

W. F. Brand. 

Rectory of St. Mary’s Church, 

Harford Co., Maryland, 

October, 1885. 


I 


/ 



/ 


\ 



